This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ජපස (talk | contribs) at 18:04, 1 December 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:04, 1 December 2005 by ජපස (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Old talk: from Red Shift, up to April, 2004, up to August 2005, up to Novemeber 2005 ---
Redshift and the POV of nonscientist layman Iantresman
As things have settled down a bit, I popped over here to see a terrible change to this article. Ian, claiming that the nonstandard redshift explanations are "non-Doppler" and the others are "Doppler" is not only incorrect, it belies an inordinate ignorance of the physics involved. You need to cut out your POV-pushing. Redshift is well described as the article stands right now. All that really needs to be done is relegate the non-standard explanations to POV-related articles. Redshift is well-established in intro astronomy texts as the four causes listed up front. The remaining ideas are outside of the mainstream and do not belong in the article. --ScienceApologist 17:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Science edit now complete. If anybody sees any errors or ambiguities, let me know. --ScienceApologist 18:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
By the way, no scattering processes are included anymore. They are not agreed upon in the scientific community to allow for full-band redshifts and therefore should not be included. --ScienceApologist 18:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)